The Age Of Ereemasonry And Masonic Historiography.

THE AGE OF EREEMASONRY AND MASONIC HISTORIOGRAPHY .

BY BRO . J . G . FINDEL , Author of the History of Freemasonry and Honorary Grand Master of Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Boston , 8 fc . The unprejudiced and scientific researches into the history of our

brotherhood , which we may briefly designate as the critical , have in recent times received valuable contributions , to which among others , must be reckoned the labours of English brethren , especially the meritorious performances of Bros .

Hughan and ' D . Murray Lyon . At the same time , however , attempts have been made to question the results of exact enquiry and to dim and confuse the conceptionsof less well-informed brethren . With all my high regards for my worthy and

amiable friend A . F . A . Woodford , with all due acknowledgement of his zeal , knowledge and good intention , I am compelled , in the interest of historical truth , which I know to be as sacred in his eyes as in my own , to combat his

views , since it is he who attempts to remove Masonic history from the firm ground of facts , and envelope it again in the midst of uncertainty . He indeed , says quite correctly ( Masonic Magazine p . 10 j "We have inherited to-day the

legends and institutions of those ancient and handiwork craftsmen , " but in the same breath he traces back the history of Masonary to the "Eoman socialities and thence to Jewish and Tynan Masons" although from the latter we

, have not inherited any legends , rites and constitutions , nor hold the least proof of their connection with the fraternities of the Stonemasons of the middle ages . Were it the task of the Masonic historian to invest the history of our

Craft with the air of a romance—and by the aid of poetical fiction to render it interesting , we should gladly follow in the alluring paths trodden by the beloved Brother Woodford ; but being in duty bound to ascertain the age and and origin of our brotherhood by the

light of bare facts and authenticated documents , we must needs pursue oui own path . Brother Woodford goes so far ( Masonic Magazinep . 9 ) as to hint at oui

, sacrificing truth at the shrine of patriotism , for he says : "Though it reflects the greatest credit on his German patriotism , to make the good ' geselMn' of the German Steinmetzen Bauhtitte the originators of

Freemasonry , we feel sure that this theory of our history will not survive the assaults of a scientific and colder criticism . "

We hope , in the following remarks , to show that there is not the slightest foundation for Brother Woodford ' s assertion , seeing that , on the contrary , the recent enquiries of a Hughan Lyonand otherstend to render it more

, , and more certain that , prior to the year 1717 , a Freemasonic Craft in the modern sense is out of the question , and that the early history has furnished the founders ofour Craft muchless material than people were formerly inclined to believe . The

whole time , therefore , previous to the memorable year 1717 , does not , strictly speaking , belong at all to the proper history of Ereemasonary , but forms only an introduction to it , in so far as we find in it the scanty sources from which

the stream of Masonry flows . Before the middle ages , neither , does the name of Freemasonry occur , nor did the . thing itself exist , and if Brother Woodford had omitted referring to the earlier Ereemasonswhoseexistencecannowhere

be proved ( p . 10 . ) we should quite agree with him in saying : " Our present Freemasonry is the legitimate successor , though on an enlarged basis , and with the admitted preponderance of the speculative element of the old operative assemblies and the socialites of medasival Freemasons " i . e . Free Stonemasons .

Brother Woodford will , we hope , come to quite a different conclusion after our unrolling to him , in brief outlines , a sketch of the course [ of Masonic historiography . For this purpose we must , first of all , separate the names